Well, the sos is just an objective ranking based up the won/loss records of opponents ... which unfortunately doesn't ake into cionsideration the won/oss records of their opponents, etc, etc, etc. However, if someone has a better onjective anal;ysis of sos, I think it would be useful to consider when comparing schools with similar records. One of the questions I have is, which is a better record? 11-1 or 11-2 (conference champ)? IMHO, a 12-1 (conference champ game winner) record is better than an 11-1 (no conf champ game) record. But the other is not a clear. And, I just don't see the love for a 2-loss non-conf champ team like UGa.
If you don't see the reason for the support for a 2 loss team like Georgia then you really won't like the playoffs where more than likely upsets happen and you could end up with a your beloved Gators being unbeaten SEC champs and getting upset along the way and see another SEC Team, maybe even a team you beat handily during the season end up winning the Nat'l Championship. People like Georgia because they are playing extremely well right now.
Valid questions no doubt.....I don't think anybody can argue that on-the-field results should take precedence and I don't think that anybody can argue that strength of opposition should also be worthy of consideration....the question then is basis of evaluation and the relative consideration given -v- on the field results. As I recall, the BCS in all their infinite wisdom decided to bag the SOS variable in ranking.....does anybody remember their rationale? Do Iremember that correctly?
BT See my comment above. And consider that most teams play one or two games against teams which are considered to be lesser teams but have good records because of their "regular" competition. While it did not accrue the same benefit as Washington from Hawaii, I suspect OSU's sos was helped by the 63.6% win % of Youngstown State. Terry My comment was for the love of UGa getting a BCS+1 spot. IMHO, in the current arragement, if you can't win yer conference, ya can't play in the +1. Now, in a tournament scenario, where ya gotta win 4 straight games, that's different.
I don't think so Gaterz.....I couldn't reconcile the numbers and suspect the reason for the difference is they only count games between and among FBS teams......I'm not certain, but that would make sense.
I didn't realize YSt was a Championship Dividion team. Anyway, my point is .... across 12 games most teams will have a game or two against opponents who have very good records because they play in non-BCS conferences. I realize it's not equal across conferences and from conference to conference but, the impact is probably not that "horrendous" as to profoundly skew the results. But, this is just my suspicion.
Seems to me that several years back, the BCS rankings explicitly included SOS, quality wins, and # of losses. In addressing concerns about the system they eliminated # of losses, quality wins and SOS.....they increased the number of computer rankings and, as MCG has pointed out, ensured that SOS was a meaningful variable in the computer rankings. As I read the computer rankings - given that they factor SOS into their calculations - and further given that they have the same top 3 teams as the human polls it would appear that all the angst about SOS not being taken into account is simply 1) not accurate, 2) sour grapes, whining because a favorite team or teams could not get it done on the field when the opportunity presented itself and 3)much ado about nothing....
BT No need to be soooooo very defensive. In fact, I don't think anyone was bemoaniong the fact the BCS doesn't explicitly use SOS in their determination of rankings. Above, I was just wondering how folks would select teams for the 2-team BCS+1 game given conference champs with similar (but unequal in total games played) w/l records because of the conference championship "BCS play in" game. That's it ..... no ulterior motives .....................
Not defensive Gaterz, nothing directed at you or your posts specifically, merely an observation.....that said, surely then you don't see or hear any whining, knashing of teeth and genuine angst about strength of schedule and BCS worthiness......after all who was it that stated so eloquently....
GF, in answer to your Rose Bowl question, if the Buckeyes play in the BCS championship game, the choice will probably come down to Georgia and Illinois. I do not believe M qualifies for a BCS bowl given its present ranking in BCS standings. And, Illinois, at present, is at the cusp of qualifying. The RB can choose whom it wishes. If USC becomes the P 10 rep, that pretty much guarantees a sellout and the RB would probably be tempted to choose the highest ranked team to obtain a match-up that would generate TV ratings. Given those circumstances, I suspect Georgia would play in the RB, Ill in the Capital One Bowl, and Michigan in the Alamo Bowl.
BT As clearly stated, I saw no one on this thread expressing concern over the "apparent fact" that the BCS does not explicitely use SOS to establish ranking. However, I believe Hawaii is being excluded from BCS+1 consideration largely because of its SOS. Now, back to my original query, if anyone would like to throw Hawaii back into the analysis or discussion of the most deserving conference champions ... those warranting one of the two BCS+1 spots ... they can. Heck, I wouldn't be bothered. So, a question I ask ... is an 11-2 conference champ playing a tougher schedule than an 11-1 conference champ more, less, or equally as deserving of a BSC+1 spot ..... as the 11-1 champ? WRT UGa getting a spot in the Rose .... why I'm surprised those SoCal folks want 100K of those mullet and jort wearing dawgs travelling to their wonderful area!! 8)
Gaterzfan, Hawaii would be included in a 16 team playoff and if they could run the table then so be it, however I think most here think they probably couldn't. That's was so great about the playoff it takes the subjectivity out of it. Basketball always has discussions about the teams that don't make it to the 65 but those arguments are minor.
Nor did I...but my guess is that somewhere outside this thread there is much whining and knashing of teeth....I could be wrong but I don't think so..... Yes..... :wink:
Agree. An undefeated Hawaii makes a 16-team tourney but doesn't get consideration for the BCS+1 because of the opponents played during that undefeated season .... or because of their SOS. So, should other conference teams be included or excluded from the BCS+1 based upon their SOS? And, if so what SOS rating could be used? BT Hah
Gaterz, Isn't that what the computers do? Do they not rank them according to a variety of relevant performance factors that includes SOS?
WRT computer polls using SOS, I'm not sure. Are there any computer polls in the BCS? It's AP, Coaches', and Harris, correct?
You realize <r>that sometimes teams get screwed for 'majors' canceling on them. <br/> <br/> I hate this GD BCS. I say include Hawaii and make the other conferences part of the BCS.<br/> <br/> Stop marginalizing competition.<br/> <br/> People can't endorse their own sh*tty non-conference scheduling practice of playing Div IAA teams by saying 'Hey look at App State and Michigan' only to turn around later in the year and say that Hawaii 'doesn't play anyone.'<br/> <br/> This Hawaii team lost in the final moments at Alabama last year and they're a much better team this year. I'm not saying they belong in the title game, but I do believe that if they go unbeaten, they belong in the BCS bowls.<br/> <br/> Lost in the shuffle of last year's spectacular finish to the Fiesta Bowl was the actual content of the game. It seems that history will write the faerie tale of Boise mounting a miracle come back of trick plays and last second TDs..but that isn't what happened. Go watch a replay of that game. Boise beat their ass for 3 and a half quarters. It was OKLAHOMA that had the miracle come back finish. Boise came back and took the game from them in the last minute and OT, but that game was a whooping heading late into the game.<br/> <br/> I thought this post from a Hawaii fan on another board was interesting:<br/> <QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE></r>
Corey, I agree re: Hawaii and do remember the thumping that Boise gave to the Sooners. I can remember being sick at the thought that those kids were going to lose that game after taking it to them the whole game.... Gaterz, the current version of the BCS has 3 components - two human polls and an average of 5 computer ranking systems each of which uses SOS in their ranking algorithms. The human polls are the coaches and the Harris. The AP is no longer used for BCS purposes. It would not be inaccurate to say that each of the three BCS components gives SOS consideration in ranking the teams. At present, the human polls and the computer polls have the same top 3 teams, indeed the same top 7, though not in precise order.
GF, You're asking the wrong guy. I don't want any part of the +1, I want a 16 team tournament. The only thing worse than the +1 is the BCS Championship game only.